ArticlePediatric cardiology2018
Transcatheter Closure of Arterial Duct in Infants < 6 kg: Amplatzer Duct Occluder Type I vs Amplatzer Duct Occluder II Additional Sizes.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcatheter closure of arterial duct (AD) remains challenging in low-weight patients and using Amplatzer Duct Occluder devices is still considered off-label in infants < 6 kg. This study aimed to report a large, single-center experience of percutaneous AD closure in infants < 6 kg as well as to compare the most frequently used devices, Amplatzer Duct Occluder type I (ADO I) and Amplatzer Duct Occluder type II Additional Sizes devices (ADO II-AS) (St. Jude Medical Corp, St. Paul, MN, USA). From March 2000 to March 2017, among the 762 patients submitted to percutaneous closure of AD at our Institution, 33 were infants < 6 kg (age 4.8 ± 2.1 months; weight 5.0 ± 0.9 kg). Fourteen patients (45%) underwent ADO I (Group I) and 19 patients ADO II-AS (Group II) device implantation. AD diameter was 2.6 ± 0.8 (range 1.5-4.0) mm resulting in QP/QS of 2.6 ± 0.0.9 (range 1.1-4.5). Successful device deployment was achieved in all patients without procedural morbidity or mortality. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were not significantly different between the groups. However, total X-ray absorbed dose was significantly higher in Group I (121 ± 69 vs 29 ± 16 mGy/cm
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.